Should I pull out of a sale of a house with no overage agreement and no back access???

TheJP

Would getting a retrospective build over agreement void indemnity insurance as the water company now know or would it still cover for repair if the water company need to dig up the floor to access pipes?

FedUpBuyer2309

Sorry for disappearing for a bit! 
To answer some questions:
The right of way at the back is useful but not essential, the house has its own driveway. The house was built in the 50s on the plan of a much older estate and it's believed that it's what I'm told is a 'sanitary pathway' so that people could have their outside toilets emptied without the waste going through the house - I'm told these were common in our city.

We actually have more information now - the extension was built in '93 not 2015 and the seller is now saying that the sewer used to be private (which is interesting having previously denied they knew about it). We have asked for retrospective build over (which the estate agent has apparently found out our local water company don't do) but the seller is holding out. For now we will have to see, I would be uncomfortable buying the house without some assurance that we wouldn't be living in a money pit

eddddy

FedUpBuyer2309 said:

We actually have more information now - the extension was built in '93 not 2015 and the seller is now saying that the sewer used to be private (which is interesting having previously denied they knew about it). We have asked for retrospective build over (which the estate agent has apparently found out our local water company don't do) but the seller is holding out. 

So the following might be the case (but I'm no expert on this) ...

• You need a build over agreement to build over a public sewer (you don't need one to build over a private sewer)

• Due to a change in the regulations, many private sewers became public sewers on 1st October 2011 (So maybe that's when 'your' private sewer became a public sewer)

• But the extension was already built by then in 1993

So I suspect the regulations required the water company to take over the sewer 'as is' - with the extension already built over it. So the water company can't object, and no retrospective build over agreement is required.

But like I say, I'm no expert on this.

FedUpBuyer2309

Tha k you that's so helpful!

ThisIsWeird

lincroft1710 said:

Hoenir said:

eddddy said:

lincroft1710 said:

Indemnity insurance for the rear access is pointless, you either have a right of access or you don't.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Indemnity insurance for absence of easement/right of access would generally work like this...

If somebody turns up saying that the homeowner doesn't have the right to use the access, the Indemnity insurance should pay for something like one of the following...

• The cost of challenging that person in court, and if you lose...

• The cost of 'buying' an access right from that person
• The cost of establishing an alternative access right
• The loss in value of the property, resulting from it not having the access

Required to protect the lenders financial interest in the property.

If the vendor is unable to provide evidence of a right of way and OP decides to go ahead with the purchase, then surely the sensible option would be to buy at a price which reflected the lack of a ROW 

Which the vendor is extremely unlikely to entertain.
Tbh, given the useful, and positive, update from the OP, I wouldn't blame the vendor either. 

ThisIsWeird

FedUpBuyer, that update is seemingly very positive.
It requires more homework to firm up your understanding, confirm what you have been told, and to see what, if any, further protection you may require.

The WB won't provide a retro Built-Over? Big deal, it's seemingly not actionable anyway due to the timeline. But the Q still remains; what would happen in the worst case scenario of the sewer under your extension collapsing? I have no idea, but the answer must be readily available, say from the WB themselves? Would they be responsible for all the work, including making good afterwards? Or would your normal home insurance kick in to cover the making good part? There is surely a straightforward and known answer to this? Anyone on here know?

(Are you considering a CCTV drains inspection as part of your survey?)

And, who 'owns' that passageway? And how well can you confirm its history? How many properties have use of it, before and beyond yours?
It's good that it isn't essential for you, but it's still a very nice thing to have, and has a 'value'. Again, consider the worst-case scenario of losing this access, and whether this remains even a small risk. Then perhaps consider your own indemnity policy to cover the loss in value of your house - I'd have thought, a pretty cheap policy?

ReadingTim

"Modern" extensions being built over sewers is a pretty common occurrence due to change in law mentioned previously - it was the case for my old 2-up 2 down Victorian terrace which I bought in 2006 and sold in 2021.  Built in 1888, presumably with a small kitchen/scullery and outside loo, this had been replaced with a modern and larger extension in the 1990s, built over the sewer, which ran through everyone's back gardens/yards, and was covered by all the other extensions which had been built on the back of the 30+ houses on the road.  

Not an issue when buying in 2006, it appeared to be insurmountable in 2021 when I came to sell, despite no issues in the preceding 15 years, nor any likely either.  nevertheless, and an indemnity was required, which annoyed me intensely as I regarded it as money for old rope.  However, tempting as it was to throw my toys out of the pram, I bit my lip and reminded myself that it was a c.£200 cost, and my buyer offered the full asking price of £275k, so in the grand scheme of things, a drop in the ocean.  

I would therefore suggest that this is a relatively common issue with older properties, especially terraced ones, so noting to get too worried about, either as a buyer, or when you come to sell.  

lincroft1710

ThisIsWeird said:

lincroft1710 said:

Hoenir said:

eddddy said:

lincroft1710 said:

Indemnity insurance for the rear access is pointless, you either have a right of access or you don't.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Indemnity insurance for absence of easement/right of access would generally work like this...

If somebody turns up saying that the homeowner doesn't have the right to use the access, the Indemnity insurance should pay for something like one of the following...

• The cost of challenging that person in court, and if you lose...

• The cost of 'buying' an access right from that person
• The cost of establishing an alternative access right
• The loss in value of the property, resulting from it not having the access

Required to protect the lenders financial interest in the property.

If the vendor is unable to provide evidence of a right of way and OP decides to go ahead with the purchase, then surely the sensible option would be to buy at a price which reflected the lack of a ROW 

Which the vendor is extremely unlikely to entertain.
Tbh, given the useful, and positive, update from the OP, I wouldn't blame the vendor either. 

As you say now we have more info, the lack of rear access doesn't seem to be much of a deal breaker